From: Dominik Riebeling <dominik.riebeling_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:53:26 +0100

On 1/11/07, t.lainson_at_gmail.com <t.lainson_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 6. Integrate the wiki and the manual. I can see no reason for them to be
> separate. I think I might have thought of a few reasons a couple of hours ago,
> but if so I've forgotten them now. :)

Ok, I'll give you some of mine ;-)

> PDF versions can be generated out of the box if the wiki uses reStructuredText
> for markup, and conversion to PDF via tex/latex/roff is trivial if using
> markdown or textile or something like that.

That won't work the way we are currently creating a bunch of manuals
out of the same source tree. It would rather require to have (a) all
information cluttered in a single manual or (b) having information
multiple times. I don't see a way this can get to work nicely. If
there is a way to hide / show information based on some tags for some
pdf-out-of-wiki I'm pretty sure this won't work reliably -- as it
seems to be pretty hard to work with the current wiki for some, adding
such a layer of complexity won't be any better, if not worse.
Additionally, we currently to pretty much stuff using LaTeX macros and
this won't be possible using some other source, restricting the way
the manual can be formatted.

I definitely prefer to not have the manual editable by the public. It
may make manual additions / corrections slower but also completely
eliminates the problem of spam and information gets "filtered" by
someone who is pretty much familiar with Rockbox. IMO, it's completely
sufficient to have the manual the way we currently do, corrections can
get send to the tracker (even if the submitter doesn't know LaTeX, a
plain text sometimes also helps a lot).

 - Dominik
Received on 2007-01-11